How would you rule unarmed hits?

[smubee]

A famous question posed by OD&D players is "If all damage does 1d6, then what the hell am I spending my Gold on?" when equipping a character.

So then you can argue that the Chainmail combat table was intended to be used, so then it makes a little more sense -- Each weapon requires a different roll against the AC to determine success. For a Dagger to hit someone with Leather Armor, they'd need to get 7 on 2d6.

This makes sense to me.

BUT, how would one go about using their bare hands against an opponent? Surely it can't do 1d6 damage. Or what about the combat roll to begin with? I always assumed that the 1d20 roll against the AC took into account that a weapon was being used.. But there's no way that someone using their fists to attack someone in Plate Armor has the same exact chance as someone using a Great Sword, right?

[Zenopus]

You could rule that unarmed attacks can only do hit points damage if the opponent is unarmored; i.e. a magic-user. If the opponent is wearing armor but no helmet, you could you use the Helm of Reading rule and give a 10% chance of success of hitting the head after a successful hit is made. Or treat the opponent as having full cover and give a -4 to hit the head.

If your opponent is fully armored and you are unarmed, one option is to try grappling. See Gygax's rules in the OD&D FAQ in Strategic Review.

Another option is to have successful unarmed attacks just do 1 hp of damage.

[Stormcrow]

It's not that you're assumed to be using Chainmail. They are assuming the referee can either adjudicate the differences between weapons, or can find rules with which to do it, like Chainmail, or whatever else he wants.

The attack tables aren't calibrated to produce realistic results when taking weapons into account. Nobody worked out that a third-level fighter realistically hits a leather-armored fighter 70% of the time, or whatever. They just made a general "how often you should be able to hit" table, and apply it generally. So if you want to apply it to something other than weapons versus armor, go right ahead. Punching? Use it for punches. Spitting? Use it for that. Whatever.

For non-lethal combat, I suggest using the normal system, but counting lost hit points against consciousness instead of life. Maybe one point of real damage if hit.

[sixdemonbag]

A well-timed, well-placed punch can do a surprising amount of damage. It can even instantly incapacitate someone. Watch any boxing or MMA fight for proof (and they wear padded gloves!). So, I would say roll normally against an unhelmed opponent with damage being 1d2 (I like some randomness to the damage roll).

For attacking a helmeted opponent, I'd have the attacker roll with disadvantage (5E-style) or maybe -2 or -3 to hit, instead. This way, a level 1-3 fighter could still hit AC 2 without any additional mods.

That's my 2 coppers.

[sixdemonbag]

Mar 17, 2018 10:17:15 GMT -6 Zenopus said:

If the opponent is wearing armor but no helmet, you could you use the Helm of Reading rule and give a 10% chance of success of hitting the head after a successful hit is made.

I like this a lot.

This would boil down to a -2 to hit (sort of) which is simple, elegant, and (arguably) supported by the rules!

[oldkat]

1. For Fighting Men this is a valid question. Clerics and Magic Users were/are restricted to specific weapons-types; they buy only what they can use.
2. Gygax and Kuntz adapted this mechanic into their Greyhawk supplement for the d20 combat roll. Keeping in mind, these adjustments are intended for weapons against types of armor that have been given an AC rating; not intended for use against Rhinoceros hide, Wolf fur, etc. The DM is on his/her own in determining those adjustments.
3. The chance to hit isn't the factor to worry about. You can hit someone with a feather given the right timing, opportunity of target, etc. It's the resulting damage that should be foremost in one's mind.

I'm sure others more learned in the original game can provide their insight to your query.

[Porphyre]

I use a mechanic similar to the dragon subduing rules:

When intent to subdue is announced
 hits scored upon the Dragon are counted as subduing rather than killing points.

Each round of melee the number of points scored in hits is ratioed over the total
 number the Dragon has (hit point total), the hits obtained being stated as a percentile
 of the total possible, i.e. 12%, 67%, etc. The percentile dice are then rolled
 to determine if the Dragon has been subdued. A roll equal to or less than the percentage
 of hits already obtained means the Dragon is subdued.

Instead of subduing , the roll represents the chances of having the opponent fall inconcious. 

[Deleted]

I like porphyre's method. If you're in plate armor with gauntlets and smash somebody in their unarmored face, you'll do 1 or 2 points of damage.

Also, OD&D combat is a one-minute round; the die roll represents the net result of a minute of frantically swording away at each other. I was the guy who suggested to Gary that different weapons do different damage, but I've gone back to everything does 1d6. It's amazing how much less the magic users whine after they've thrown their spell.

I don't call my GaryCon game "Magic Users with Knives" for nothing.

[sixdemonbag]

My only issue with the “dragon subdual damage method” is that it makes the standard method of combat irrelevant. Why wouldn’t you always declare subdual damage instead of causing damage normally?

You get a free chance to incapacitate every round with no penalty. At which point, you could still just kill it anyway.

Basically, I’m saying subdual in the dragon example is WAY too powerful to be used regularly and there isn’t any reason not to always do it that way.

Thoughts?

[strangebrew]

I'd be tempted to use the overbearing rules first published/clarified (I believe) in an issue of the Strategic Review. Both sides roll their hit dice and the loser is stunned. In my mind it would represent a minute of punching and wrestling around. That's a cool abstract simple little subsystem that doesn't get enough attention.

If someone wanted to just punch someone, that seems like a deathwish when dealing with armored opponents and monsters. I would maybe let then roll d6 for damage but then let the target get a free attack in since the attacker had to get in so close. One of the reasons swords are long is so they're...long.

[tetramorph]

sixdemonbag, I fear in replying that I will pull this thread off-topic, but, well, here goes.

When I play and I find myself part of a party up against a dragon we never go for kill we always go for subdual!

We either hawk it for gold or one of us acquires a fancy new mount.

But we have a campaign world zanny enough to sustain this approach!

Fight on!

[Lord Cias]

Mar 17, 2018 9:43:36 GMT -6 smubee said:

A famous question posed by OD&D players is "If all damage does 1d6, then what the hell am I spending my Gold on?" when equipping a character.

All WEAPONS, not just any random objects, do 1-6 points of damage. While not explicitly stated I believe it is reasonable to assume, given the examples listed, that the word "weapon" here applies exclusively to "lethal weapons" as opposed to non-lethal weapons (which would normally only cause pain and/or minor injury except under the most extreme of circumstances). Thus bare fists, among other things, not being "lethal weapons" would not inflict a full 1-6 damage (and usually no damage at all).

Of course exceptions could be made. I would consider the bare fists of an 18 strength fighting man to possibly be partially lethal (say 1-3 points of damage) when attacking unarmored opponents. Naturally wearing a metal gauntlet or brass knuckles makes one's fists no longer bare, and could be considered lethal weapons on a strong fighting man, or partially lethal when used by others. Likewise, lobbing pebbles at someone normally won't kill them, but larger stones thrown en masse (or those tossed by hobbits) could inflict lethal damage.

[foster1941]

For grapples and overbearing I use something like the procedure outlined in SR #2. For punches I’d say they are ineffective against anyone wearing metal armor. Otherwise they do 1 point of damage (2 if the attacker is wearing a metal gauntlet or equivalent (brass knuckles, etc)) and have a 5% chance to stun for 1 round for each point by which the attack roll exceeded the minimum needed to hit (so if you needed an 8 to hit and rolled a 15 you’ve got a 7x5=35% chance to stun the opponent causing them to lose their next round action).

[oakesspalding]

I'm not sure about unarmed hits. I am working on something a bit different for my "Japanese" setting.

But without sounding too curmudgeonly, I would challenge one of the central assumptions of this discussion - the assumption that against plate armor, bare hands are inferior to, say, swords in some significantly important way.

Remember that in OD&D combat is generally abstract (I'm ignoring the thing about overbearing that came up above). The two parties engaged in melee are not just standing there taking alternate swings at each other where a "hit" means a swing connects and a "miss" means it doesn't. That's not how it works in reality either. Two guys in plate armor (or one in plate armor and one not) aren't just standing there trading swings. It's just as possible they may be rolling around on the ground together or whatever.

In a sense, a sword is completely ineffective against plate armor. It can't penetrate it. It just can't. So how do you win with a sword? You knock the armored guy down and then put your sword through his eye slit. A big heavy sword might help you knock him down; a small sharp sword probably wouldn't.

Now, some swords were designed to pry open or get onto weak spots in armor, but again, you would often do this once you had knocked the guy down.

How do you defeat the armored guy with your fists? You knock him down and then try to break his neck or bash his head against a stone or whatever. It's better if you can get his helmet off, but you could even do it with it on. So in a sense, fists are almost better than many swords - fists can knock people down; normal swords often cannot, especially if someone is wearing plate.

The disadvantage of fists, of course, is that you have a more difficult time parrying the armored guy's weapon, whatever that is - if you try to with your fists, your fingers get sliced off - so I think it's THIS factor, rather than the "softness" of a bare-handed attack that might account for bare-handed attacks doing, say, lower damage or having a worse chance to hit, again within an abstract OD&D system.

But to sort of sum it up and look at a concrete example. Imagine I'm wearing plate armor and fighting Muhammed Ali. He decides to do nothing but whack away at my breastplate with his longsword, I'm probably going to survive. But if he throws the sword away and tries to punch me to the ground so he can use further punches to bash my head in (even if he doesn't try to get my helmet off first), I'm just total toast. Now if I have a long weapon, and I'm skilled enough to use it to prevent him from getting his fists close enough to hit me, then he's going to fail, but he would fail not because his punches are less effective than his sword slashes (it's actually the opposite) but because he would have too much difficulty using his hands to fend off my weapon.

And I would suggest that the above would carry over into fights involving other weapons or other sorts of armor, although of course the details would vary.

[sixdemonbag]

Mar 17, 2018 12:32:34 GMT -6 tetramorph said:

sixdemonbag, I fear in replying that I will pull this thread off-topic, but, well, here goes.

When I play and I find myself part of a party up against a dragon we never go for kill we always go for subdual!

We either hawk it for gold or one of us acquires a fancy new mount.

But we have a campaign world zanny enough to sustain this approach!

Fight on!

No worries. I think there is plenty of overlap with grappling, subdual, and unarmed combat.

I was really just curious what others thought about extending the specific dragon rules to the general case. At first blush, it seems like players would always want to take advantage of the better odds. For dragons, the one-off rule is pretty fun.

It was an interesting suggestion and I was just pondering the ramifications.

[foster1941]

Mar 17, 2018 14:45:17 GMT -6 oakesspalding said:

I'm not sure about unarmed hits. I am working on something a bit different for my "Japanese" setting.

But without sounding too curmudgeonly, I would challenge one of the central assumptions of this discussion - the assumption that against plate armor, bare hands are inferior to, say, swords in some significantly important way

I feel like what you’re thinking about here is folded into the concept of AC. The heavier the armor, the more difficult it is for anyone to get a telling blow in. But when someone does manage to bypass the armor, a fist just causes bruising and maybe broken bones, while a weapon is more likely to cause deadly trauma. There are lots of circumstances where it’s better to disable your opponent without killing them, and in those cases using fists makes sense, but when both sides are trying to kill each other you’re better off with a deadly weapon.

[oakesspalding]

Mar 17, 2018 20:26:54 GMT -6 foster1941 said:

Mar 17, 2018 14:45:17 GMT -6 oakesspalding said:

I'm not sure about unarmed hits. I am working on something a bit different for my "Japanese" setting.

But without sounding too curmudgeonly, I would challenge one of the central assumptions of this discussion - the assumption that against plate armor, bare hands are inferior to, say, swords in some significantly important way

I feel like what you’re thinking about here is folded into the concept of AC. The heavier the armor, the more difficult it is for anyone to get a telling blow in. But when someone does manage to bypass the armor, a fist just causes bruising and maybe broken bones, while a weapon is more likely to cause deadly trauma. There are lots of circumstances where it’s better to disable your opponent without killing them, and in those cases using fists makes sense, but when both sides are trying to kill each other you’re better off with a deadly weapon.

The following video of the various things you can and cannot do in or against plate armor, doesn't exactly prove my point, though I think some of it might suggest it. In any case, if you haven't seen it, it's pretty cool.

Le combat en armure au XVe siècle.

[derv]

I think there are a number of ways to handle this. For me, it starts with the question of whether you think an unarmed man could kill their opponent with bare hands in a given situation.

Ran out of time. I'll comment more later.

[oakesspalding]

So how about this? Give unarmed hits whatever low damage you think they deserve - 1-2 points or whatever, but then say that IF you bring an opponent to zero with them, they're simply knocked out, not dead.

I included grappling rules in my own game, but I still wonder whether or not I should have. It's always seemed odd to me that an attack-mode that is supposedly so ineffective - attacking with your hands - should at the same time trigger a mechanism - the potential to restrain or stun or whatever - that serves as one of the only workarounds to the annoying process of having to methodically wear someone's hit points down.

[sixdemonbag]

Mar 18, 2018 10:04:44 GMT -6 oakesspalding said:

So how about this? Give unarmed hits whatever low damage you think they deserve - 1-2 points or whatever, but then say that IF you bring an opponent to zero with them, they're simply knocked out, not dead

That’s pretty much exactly how I do it. I add a small modifier if reaching a vulnerable spot is more difficult but not impossible (like some helmets). If punching something would clearly hurt one’s hand more than the subject of attack, then damage isn’t really possible except against oneself!

Getting a monster to zero hit points while being unarmed would be difficult enough as it is without needing more penalties.

Hit points being abstract as they are, you can always role play what bringing the opponent to zero HP entailed. Did you rip his helmet off and choke him out? Knockout punch? Wear down his cardio? Vulcan neck pinch?

A little creativity can narrate almost any outcome. And keeping a single set hit points is just easier as faster.

I do really like the HD vs HD method for grapples involving multiple opponents. For 1-on-1 I roll d20 + level/HD vs. d20 + HD which amounts to the same thing without the bell curves (more variance).

[derv]

I'm going to throw this out there as a stream of thought instead of a set way of running unarmed combat.

I think we can all agree that it is entirely possible to kill someone barehanded. If you find yourself unarmed in a death struggle you will not be thinking about subduing your opponent. A person would be thinking about survival. Thus, they would want to maximize damage however possible to end the threat. Is d6 damage reasonable in this case? Maybe, maybe not.

However, if we are talking about two guys bare knuckle boxing, subduing damage makes sense. They would not be intent on killing each other. The rules for dragons is entirely functional here and I would use d6 for damage.

If you want to stay with the d6 damage convention, regardless of the weapon and including barehands, you could allow a saving throw for either no damage or half damage. This could be based on CON or, the one I like because of it's progression, vs. wands. What I like about a save vs. wands is that it progresses with level and can be associated with armor. So, Fighter= plate, Cleric= chain, and MU= leather. Unarmored men would not get a save.

On the other hand, you might want to give your players a choice. I like giving choices that have consequences. They could attempt to kill for d3 damage (or whatever) and no saving throw or subdue for d6 damage with a saving throw. Here I would not use the Dragon subduing rule. Whatever the choice, you must take your opponent to zero hp's. They're either dead or unconscious.

That's it for now.

[scottenkainen]

For me: 1-3 damage, zero hit points is unconscious, the same or similar to what others have posted.

Even if you accept that all weapons do 1-6 damage, unarmed combat implies weaponless, so the standard weapon rules cannot apply to it.

(That's for punching or kicking; I have more complicated rules for grappling.)

[talysman]

I change my mind all the time about unarmed combat. However, my basic instinct is to roll 1d6 damage as usual, but to only treat this as "real" damage if the fighter is wearing a metal gauntlet or something like that. Brass knuckles do 1 point of real damage on a 5+. If the attacker has no such hand protection and the opponent is wearing metal armor, a damage roll of 1 means the attacker takes a point of damage.

Otherwise, I keep a separate tally of the damage rolls. If real damage + this tally of "imaginary" damage exceeds the target's hit points, the target is knocked out or incapacitated. Imaginary damage disappears after resting.

[Porphyre]

Mar 18, 2018 12:23:04 GMT -6 talysman said:

I change my mind all the time about unarmed combat. However, my basic instinct is to roll 1d6 damage as usual, but to only treat this as "real" damage if the fighter is wearing a metal gauntlet or something like that. Brass knuckles do 1 point of real damage on a 5+. If the attacker has no such hand protection and the opponent is wearing metal armor, a damage roll of 1 means the attacker takes a point of damage.

Otherwise, I keep a separate tally of the damage rolls. If real damage + this tally of "imaginary" damage exceeds the target's hit points, the target is knocked out or incapacitated. Imaginary damage disappears after resting.

The concept on "non lethal damage" is what inspired me to use the subdung rules. 

[oakesspalding]

The problem, though, is that in the OD&D combat system ALL damage is non-lethal until you get to zero hit points. The only exception to that would be taking successive stabs against some big monster or whatever.

[Porphyre]

Mar 17, 2018 13:17:29 GMT -6 Lord Cias said:

Mar 17, 2018 9:43:36 GMT -6 smubee said:

A famous question posed by OD&D players is "If all damage does 1d6, then what the hell am I spending my Gold on?" when equipping a character.

All WEAPONS, not just any random objects, do 1-6 points of damage. While not explicitly stated I believe it is reasonable to assume, given the examples listed, that the word "weapon" here applies exclusively to "lethal weapons" as opposed to non-lethal weapons (which would normally only cause pain and/or minor injury except under the most extreme of circumstances). Thus bare fists, among other things, not being "lethal weapons" would not inflict a full 1-6 damage (and usually no damage at all).

I use 1d3 damage for objects that are not "technically" weapons, but could be used lethally : a shovel, a crowbar, a heavy cadlestick, colonel mustard with the wrench in the library ...

[derv]

Mar 18, 2018 13:46:06 GMT -6 oakesspalding said:

The problem, though, is that in the OD&D combat system ALL damage is non-lethal until you get to zero hit points. The only exception to that would be taking successive stabs against some big monster or whatever.

Except if you are talking about normal men doing normal damage (average hp's and average damage with d6). Then one hit can be lethal.

I think that's more the issue that I wrestle with when thinking about unarmed combat.

[clownboss]

I think of a case-by-case basis. If a bandit or other person seems sickly or craven to my eyes, it would be easy to give damage to him of 1-2 damage per hit. Stronger people can be subdued and knocked unconscious. A bear or ogre can't be punched to unconsciousness - Not unless your character has Strength of 17 or 18, which is probably not the case. It might be easier once you become a Superhero

[Porphyre]

Mar 25, 2018 5:06:20 GMT -6 clownboss said:

A bear or ogre can't be punched to unconsciousness - Not unless your character has Strength of 17 or 18, which is probably not the case. It might be easier once you become a Superhero

Creatures of 4HD or more can't be affected by a Sleep spell. I usually use the same cut-off for effects like knocking off, choking, wrestling, etc. 

[rustic313]

For straight up damage, punches from olympic boxers deliver as much energy (in joules) as a one handed weapon does:
Punches and Overhanded Strikes by strong people: 100-121J
One handed Weapons: On order of 40-130J

I am comfortable letting unarmed strikes deal 1d3 lethal damage. More people are killed in the USA every year with bare hands and feet than rifles, shotguns, or improvised weapons (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls). Unarmed blows clearly kill.  Tracking "subdual" damage is a PITA and usually adds little to the game.

Grappling is a harder question. The only OD&D guidance we have is the Strategic Review example (ye olde hero and 10 orcs in a hallway). The way I read that algorithm, it goes:
1) Roll to hit.
2) Any hit allows the attacker(s) to roll 1d6 per HD. The defender rolls 1d6 per HD.
3) If the defender's total is higher then the attackers are thrown off and stunned. If the defender's total is lower, then he is pinned.

I have been toying with simplifying that procedure because all that addition is a PITA...
1) Roll to hit.
2) Each figure that hits rolls 1d6 per HD. The defender rolls 1d6 per HD.
3) Add up the best two dice.
3A) Add the best STR modifiers (attacker) or STR or DEX (whichever is better) for the defender. Monsters with a "+1" after their HD add this modifier.
3B) If either party has only one HD, roll 2d6 - 2.

This is faster than EGG's method as you are adding only two dice. Additionally, EGG's method scales linearly, i.e. 10 HD is twice as good as 5 HD. The "take the best 2d6" results in diminishing returns, which means that a 4 HD Hero has a fighting chance of resisting grappling by an 8 HD hydra (as opposed to zero chance).

I also use the "Roll 2d6 and add a relevant modifier" as a generic check for a lot of things so its a nice little "unified mechanic" for task resolution.

If you want something even simpler, I think you could roll 1d6 per HD, take the best die only, and do NOT add STR/DEX modifiers. Multiple sixes break ties. That also has a "diminishing returns" factor to it.